利益相关者对个性化提供者选择和患者-治疗师匹配的态度的定性分析。

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-23 DOI:10.1007/s10488-023-01302-w
James F Boswell, Carly M Schwartzman, Michael J Constantino, Adela Scharff, Heather J Muir, Averi N Gaines, Brittany R King, David R Kraus
{"title":"利益相关者对个性化提供者选择和患者-治疗师匹配的态度的定性分析。","authors":"James F Boswell, Carly M Schwartzman, Michael J Constantino, Adela Scharff, Heather J Muir, Averi N Gaines, Brittany R King, David R Kraus","doi":"10.1007/s10488-023-01302-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study explored mental health care patients and therapists' perspectives on using therapists' measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness data to inform case assignments - a type of treatment personalization that has been shown to outperform non-measurement-based case assignment as usual (Constantino et al., 2021). We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 8 patients (75% women; M age = 33.75 years) and 8 therapists (75% women; M age = 47.50 years). The interview protocols were unique to stakeholder group. Recorded responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by four judges using a blend of consensual qualitative research and grounded theory methods. Derived patient domains included preferred characteristics of a provider, and experiences and suggestions regarding provider selection. Within the domains, most patients expressed an interest in accessing more specific provider information online. Additionally, most patients indicated that both provider outcome track records and personal preference information (e.g., therapist characteristics) should be considered in the therapist selection process. All patients endorsed being comfortable with having the ability to select a provider based on a list of empirically well-matched recommendations. Derived therapist domains included using routine outcomes monitoring for patient-provider matching, referral source and direct patient use of preferred provider lists, and improvements to the provider selection process. Within the domains, all therapists remarked that outcome data would be useful for matching patients to providers; however, most also indicated that outcome data should not be the only factor used in provider selection. All therapists expressed a willingness to be included in preferred provider lists that incorporate track record data. Overall, both patients and therapists held generally positive views toward using therapist effectiveness data to help personalize mental health care. Yet, both stakeholder groups acknowledged that other personalization factors should be considered alongside these data. Based on these results, our team is in the process of implementing patient-therapist match strategies in larger and more diverse mental health care contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":7195,"journal":{"name":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching.\",\"authors\":\"James F Boswell, Carly M Schwartzman, Michael J Constantino, Adela Scharff, Heather J Muir, Averi N Gaines, Brittany R King, David R Kraus\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10488-023-01302-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study explored mental health care patients and therapists' perspectives on using therapists' measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness data to inform case assignments - a type of treatment personalization that has been shown to outperform non-measurement-based case assignment as usual (Constantino et al., 2021). We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 8 patients (75% women; M age = 33.75 years) and 8 therapists (75% women; M age = 47.50 years). The interview protocols were unique to stakeholder group. Recorded responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by four judges using a blend of consensual qualitative research and grounded theory methods. Derived patient domains included preferred characteristics of a provider, and experiences and suggestions regarding provider selection. Within the domains, most patients expressed an interest in accessing more specific provider information online. Additionally, most patients indicated that both provider outcome track records and personal preference information (e.g., therapist characteristics) should be considered in the therapist selection process. All patients endorsed being comfortable with having the ability to select a provider based on a list of empirically well-matched recommendations. Derived therapist domains included using routine outcomes monitoring for patient-provider matching, referral source and direct patient use of preferred provider lists, and improvements to the provider selection process. Within the domains, all therapists remarked that outcome data would be useful for matching patients to providers; however, most also indicated that outcome data should not be the only factor used in provider selection. All therapists expressed a willingness to be included in preferred provider lists that incorporate track record data. Overall, both patients and therapists held generally positive views toward using therapist effectiveness data to help personalize mental health care. Yet, both stakeholder groups acknowledged that other personalization factors should be considered alongside these data. Based on these results, our team is in the process of implementing patient-therapist match strategies in larger and more diverse mental health care contexts.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-023-01302-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-023-01302-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究探讨了心理健康护理患者和治疗师对使用治疗师基于测量和特定问题的有效性数据来告知病例分配的看法,这是一种治疗个性化,已被证明优于非基于测量的病例分配(Constantino et al.,2021)。我们对8名患者(75%为女性;M年龄 = 33.75岁)和8名治疗师(75%为女性;M年龄 = 47.50岁)。访谈协议是利益相关者群体独有的。四名法官采用双方同意的定性研究和有根据的理论方法,对记录的答复进行了转录和定性分析。衍生的患者领域包括提供者的偏好特征,以及关于提供者选择的经验和建议。在这些领域中,大多数患者表示有兴趣在线访问更具体的提供者信息。此外,大多数患者表示,在治疗师选择过程中,应考虑提供者的结果跟踪记录和个人偏好信息(如治疗师特征)。所有患者都赞同能够根据经验匹配的推荐列表选择提供者。衍生治疗师领域包括使用常规结果监测进行患者-提供者匹配、转诊来源和患者直接使用首选提供者名单,以及改进提供者选择过程。在这些领域中,所有治疗师都表示,结果数据将有助于将患者与提供者进行匹配;然而,大多数人也表示,结果数据不应是选择提供者时使用的唯一因素。所有治疗师都表示愿意被纳入包含跟踪记录数据的首选提供者名单。总的来说,患者和治疗师都对使用治疗师有效性数据来帮助个性化心理健康护理持普遍积极的看法。然而,两个利益相关者团体都承认,在这些数据的同时,还应该考虑其他个性化因素。基于这些结果,我们的团队正在更大、更多样的心理健康护理环境中实施患者-治疗师匹配策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching.

This study explored mental health care patients and therapists' perspectives on using therapists' measurement-based and problem-specific effectiveness data to inform case assignments - a type of treatment personalization that has been shown to outperform non-measurement-based case assignment as usual (Constantino et al., 2021). We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with 8 patients (75% women; M age = 33.75 years) and 8 therapists (75% women; M age = 47.50 years). The interview protocols were unique to stakeholder group. Recorded responses were transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by four judges using a blend of consensual qualitative research and grounded theory methods. Derived patient domains included preferred characteristics of a provider, and experiences and suggestions regarding provider selection. Within the domains, most patients expressed an interest in accessing more specific provider information online. Additionally, most patients indicated that both provider outcome track records and personal preference information (e.g., therapist characteristics) should be considered in the therapist selection process. All patients endorsed being comfortable with having the ability to select a provider based on a list of empirically well-matched recommendations. Derived therapist domains included using routine outcomes monitoring for patient-provider matching, referral source and direct patient use of preferred provider lists, and improvements to the provider selection process. Within the domains, all therapists remarked that outcome data would be useful for matching patients to providers; however, most also indicated that outcome data should not be the only factor used in provider selection. All therapists expressed a willingness to be included in preferred provider lists that incorporate track record data. Overall, both patients and therapists held generally positive views toward using therapist effectiveness data to help personalize mental health care. Yet, both stakeholder groups acknowledged that other personalization factors should be considered alongside these data. Based on these results, our team is in the process of implementing patient-therapist match strategies in larger and more diverse mental health care contexts.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: The aim of Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services is to improve mental health services through research. This journal primarily publishes peer-reviewed, original empirical research articles.  The journal also welcomes systematic reviews. Please contact the editor if you have suggestions for special issues or sections focusing on important contemporary issues.  The journal usually does not publish articles on drug or alcohol addiction unless it focuses on persons who are dually diagnosed. Manuscripts on children and adults are equally welcome. Topics for articles may include, but need not be limited to, effectiveness of services, measure development, economics of mental health services, managed mental health care, implementation of services, staffing, leadership, organizational relations and policy, and the like.  Please review previously published articles for fit with our journal before submitting your manuscript.
期刊最新文献
The Importance of Patient Experience in Obtaining Mental Health Care at HRSA-Funded Health Centers. Outcomes that Matter to Youth and Families in Behavioral Health Services. "So Many Other Things Improve" with Transdiagnostic Treatment for Sleep and Circadian Problems: Interviews with Community Providers on Treating Clients with Serious Mental Illness. Patients' and Therapists' Experiences of Standardized Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Needs for a Personalized Approach. A Qualitative Analysis of Stakeholder Attitudes Regarding Personalized Provider Selection and Patient-Therapist Matching.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1